RJTT: from an arrival to an approach without a connecting wpt

[CaptainLars 21]

Hi again,

 

lastly I was approaching RJTT. ProATC-X assigned me DARKS Arrival to Rwy 34R VOR-A Approach.

 

Judging by the charts (which are from 2014/15), DARKS arrival can end up twofold: via LDA approach to Rwy 22 or 23 and a VOR-A approach to Rwys 16L/R via a described noise abatement procedure with visual giding lights.

 

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/11/22/rjtt-tokio-haneda/

 

But: there is no description of an approach to Rwy 34R from DARKS wpt, and there is no published VOR-A Approach for Rwy 34R at all. I took a look at the Navigraph thumbnails and judging from that, I don't think there's one in the present cycle as well.

 

Yet, the current Navigraph AIRAC cycle knows a Rwy 34R VOR-A approach. PFPX knows it, ProATC-X knows it, and the PMDG 777 knows it as well. The Nav display shows the magenta line along DARKS and SAZAN and then via MA274 to the missed approach hold, at no point getting close to the extended rwy center line, just passing diagonally over the aerodrome.

 

I know this is not PMDG's "fault", but I'd like to know whether this is completely wrong (i. e., there must be a fault or a bug somewhere in the AIRAC data, or the problem must be in the obsolete charts), or if there is a method, something that any pilot supposedly knows and anybody expects in such a situation so that it can pass unmentioned in the charts? Or that escaped me?

 

Personally I turned left to something like a right downwind (ATC had cleared me for 700ft by then, so I was VERY low above the bay of Tokyo), and then right-turned to rwy heading. It resulted in a safe landing in the end.

 

So, what to do in such a situation? Could anyone tell me how to get from DARKS Arrival to Rwy 34R VOR-A Approach?

 

Thank you very much!

[Budbud 227]

Hi,

 

I findthis kind of situation quite a lot in Canada where all the AIRACs give SID and STARS that are not depicted on Navigraph charts and I don't know why neither.

In your case, there is the ILS Y 34R which starts at Kaiho which seems to be the first waypoint of the STAR Darks. Maybe could you catch the ILS from that point instead of going up to Darks.

[CaptainLars 21]

It would have been a lot easier to start the APPROACH at Kaiho instead of going via DARKS. But ATC told me so... and PFPX thought the same.

[BlueStar 323]

there is no description of an approach to Rwy 34R from DARKS wpt, and there is no published VOR-A Approach for Rwy 34R at all.

 

I looked at my Jepps and we do not have a VOR-A to RWY34R.  The DARKS RNAV is for LDA Y 23.  So the routing would be DARKS..DOMEL

 

I don't go into RJTT but use as an alternate for RJAA weather permitting.  If I were going into RJTT I would expect an RNAV arrival with vectors to the LOC.  

 

In todays modern ATC, especially for RNAV equipped aircraft the normal procedure would be an RNAV arrival to the LOC.

 

blaustern

[CaptainLars 21]

Hi, thanks for your insight. I posted the issue over at Navigraph and they too stated there's no VOR-A for 34R. They also stated that the transition from DARKS to 34R would be done by vectoring normally. The also stated that this combination is not explicitly forbidden.

[BlueStar 323]

 

 

The also stated that this combination is not explicitly forbidden.

 

On my plates the DARKS RNAV is for RWY23 only.   :smile: 

 

If you will look at the DARKS RNAV arrival you will notice that it brings aircraft from south of RJTT to the northeast side to position them for landing to the southwest. 

 

 

 

They also stated that the transition from DARKS to 34R would be done by vectoring normally.

 

ATC will almost always bring an aircraft over specific fixes for specific runways.  The DARKS RNAV starts at KAIHO intersection which is an IAF for the ILS RWY34 L/R.   ATC is not going to put an aircraft on the DARKS RNAV arrival so the aircraft can be vectored back to RWY34R,. It just doesn't work that way in the real world.  :smile: 

 

blaustern 

[CaptainLars 21]

blaustern, I agree 100% with you. I was trying to figure out what happened on that specific flight of mine and "whose fault" it was, if it was mine, Navigraph's or ProATC-X's... In the meantime, Navigraph has made a more elaborate statement:

 

 

 

Hi Lars,
I will try to explain where the problem is with such approaches ... the VOR-A approach is a CTL approach. A CTL approach has no runway ident but every addon needs at least a runway. So, we had two options: exclude such procedures or include it with an workaround. Exclude was no option because the initial question was about the CTLs in Funchial/Madeira - therefore we decided to develop a workaround. The workaround makes following: add a runway ident to each CTL approaches. There is no reference in the ARINC424 standard-source, for which runway this CTL is valid therefore I add ALL runways of an airport to such CTL approaches, to know that some runways are not valid. We don´t have enough information in the dataset to connect CTL approaches to the right runway. Therefore the wrong existing VOR-A approaches on the runways of 34. Sorry, there is no possibility to fix it without exclude all CTL approaches.
Hope that helps!

[BlueStar 323]

Glad you got it worked out, or at least got an explanation that makes sense. 

 

Now just to beat the weather into KDFW tonight. :smile: 

 

blaustern

[trisho0 23]

From FSX Acceleration I did a flight plan RJAH rwy 3R to RJTT rwy 23 and landed weird. PMDG 747 v2, V3 and 777 did touchdown far away from runway 23 and won't speed down brakes non responsive. How to land on the runway as it should instead of few feet before runway?

[downscc 1,327]

14 minutes ago, trisho0 said:

From FSX Acceleration I did a flight plan RJAH rwy 3R to RJTT rwy 23 and landed weird. PMDG 747 v2, V3 and 777 did touchdown far away from runway 23 and won't speed down brakes non responsive. How to land on the runway as it should instead of few feet before runway?

Could be many things, but without a lot more information it is only a guess.  This ideally would be a new topic since it has little to do with the original post.

My guess is you are using default scenery and the current day RJTT has had runway work done and they are extended?? Maybe.  The PMDG FMS uses navdata based on current data, and has no knowledge of what scenery gets rendered.

[Ephedrin 418]

39 minutes ago, trisho0 said:

 How to land on the runway as it should instead of few feet before runway?

Manually

 

errors can occure in the real world too and pilots will have to deal with it. You‘re the pilot, fly your airplane.

 

:)

[trisho0 23]

4 hours ago, downscc said:

This ideally would be a new topic since it has little to do with the original post.

Thank you, I will proceed a new thread with more info

[Driverab330 74]

On 11/22/2016 at 7:41 AM, CaptainLars said:

Hi again,

 

lastly I was approaching RJTT. ProATC-X assigned me DARKS Arrival to Rwy 34R VOR-A Approach.

 

Judging by the charts (which are from 2014/15), DARKS arrival can end up twofold: via LDA approach to Rwy 22 or 23 and a VOR-A approach to Rwys 16L/R via a described noise abatement procedure with visual giding lights.

 

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/11/22/rjtt-tokio-haneda/

 

But: there is no description of an approach to Rwy 34R from DARKS wpt, and there is no published VOR-A Approach for Rwy 34R at all. I took a look at the Navigraph thumbnails and judging from that, I don't think there's one in the present cycle as well.

 

Yet, the current Navigraph AIRAC cycle knows a Rwy 34R VOR-A approach. PFPX knows it, ProATC-X knows it, and the PMDG 777 knows it as well. The Nav display shows the magenta line along DARKS and SAZAN and then via MA274 to the missed approach hold, at no point getting close to the extended rwy center line, just passing diagonally over the aerodrome.

 

I know this is not PMDG's "fault", but I'd like to know whether this is completely wrong (i. e., there must be a fault or a bug somewhere in the AIRAC data, or the problem must be in the obsolete charts), or if there is a method, something that any pilot supposedly knows and anybody expects in such a situation so that it can pass unmentioned in the charts? Or that escaped me?

 

Personally I turned left to something like a right downwind (ATC had cleared me for 700ft by then, so I was VERY low above the bay of Tokyo), and then right-turned to rwy heading. It resulted in a safe landing in the end.

 

So, what to do in such a situation? Could anyone tell me how to get from DARKS Arrival to Rwy 34R VOR-A Approach?

 

Thank you very much!

I am a regular visitor flying into RJTT in real life. 

 

First of all, there is no such thing as a VOR34R approach based on the charts I have. 

 

There is a VOR34L approach which uses HME VOR for the approach. 

I am not sure which direction you came in, the DARKS arrival begins with a waypoint KAIHO, this arrival is not very often used, so I assume you flew in from south west of japan.  

 

However LDA 22 appr is frequently used whenever there is a Southly wind. So you could have just continue on the LDA 22 appr land on rwy 22. 

 

For HND if you come from the south for rwy 34 normally you will get Arlon / KAIHO arrival. And Bacon arrival for LDA rwy 22. 

 

The VOR 34L and Highway visual 34R begins at a waypoint Cacao which is part of the CACHE arrival. 

 

VOR A 16L/R is almost never used these days. 

[trisho0 23]

2 hours ago, Driverab330 said:

I am a regular visitor flying into RJTT in real life. 

A pleasure to find a Pilot here. What about runway 23 did you land on with ILS? I found PMDG 747 v2 FMC NAV showing 230 heading. And PMDG 747 v3 shows 232. What do you set on MCP HDG window?

[downscc 1,327]

2 hours ago, trisho0 said:

What do you set on MCP HDG window?

Set the HDG to whatever you want, the course is the salient variable and it is automatically set based on the navdata.  What you are you using the HDG for?  If for go around then set it according to go around procedures, usually but not always the runway heading (a 2 deg difference is insignificant, you are protected by TERPS in an area that accommodates much larger errors).  Don't compare things like this with the legacy version of the product...., too many pitfalls there.